[TheNegotiator]

This question is clearly aimed at discretionary intraday short to ultra short term traders. How many different markets/indicators/metrics do you feel a trader can effectively monitor in real time to support trade decisions?

To me at least this is an interesting question as I have seen so many traders' screens lit up like an arcade with different indicators and others where there is so little that it barely seems worthwhile having the chart at all.

They say that traders have to have the mental agility of a fighter pilot to keep up with everything, but are all the instruments we use really necessary and do complicated screens actually tend to distract us more than anything else?

[TheNegotiator]

Personally, I don't use any indicators like oscillators etc. but will look much more at volume based charts such as delta in a few different ways. I used to look at many, many different markets to try to get a leading market but I often found myself putting too much emphasis on moves in instruments other than the one I was trading. So now I look at only my primary market and when I am trading others clearly those too. I monitor my quoteboard for any big moves and perhaps take a look if any markets require my attention. I also have been closely following $ as often this is the driving force at the moment.

Listing the things I monitor actually makes me realise that I do monitor an awful lot of things to try to help my trade decisions. I actually am quite comfortable with keeping up with these right now and I never feel as though I am losing myself during busy periods.

So I would say I monitor 7 or 8 different markets and metrics at any one time with varying emphasis on each. Anyone think that is too much or too little? Do a count of your own and compare it with other guys setups.

[Tradewinds]

I only monitor one market, the SP emini. For me personally, I just can't monitor multiple chart tickers. That's why I decided to trade the ES, and not stocks. I monitor 6 lower indicators, and price support and resistance on one screen. I have two computers, each with two screens. So I have 4 screens. One screen is nothing but a price chart and the trading ladder. I think it's good to have one chart with nothing but price on it, and keep the overall picture for the time frame you are trading in context.

So 98% of what I monitor is on one screen in front of me. I has taken a long time, years, to refine what I want to monitor and what I feel is valuable to monitor. All my indicators are custom programed by myself.

My other two screens have the NYSE UpVolume-Down Volume and the NYSE Advancers - Decliners. I glance at those to see if newer highs and lows have been made, or it there was an unusually big move. Sometimes volume will have a big move right before the price moves. For example, there could be a lot of down volume and price doesn't move that much, but price will catch up to the volume. It happens very quickly, so there is not a lot of warning or time to react, but every little piece of information can help.

[pbylina]

Originally Posted by TheNegotiator »

So I would say I monitor 7 or 8 different markets and metrics at any one time with varying emphasis on each. Anyone think that is too much or too little? Do a count of your own and compare it with other guys setups.

Well there is a strong correlation between EUR&CHF, CAD&OIL, and AUD&GOLD. So it would be a good for confirmation.

[MadMarketScientist]

Originally Posted by Tradewinds »

So I have 4 screens. One screen is nothing but a price chart and the trading ladder.
My other two screens have the NYSE UpVolume-Down Volume and the NYSE Advancers - Decliners.

so the fourth screen is for TL right?

MMS

[MadMarketScientist]

OP - this isn't a problem only with real-time traders ... I have this same problem just trying to trade stocks over the medium term. there is just too much info out there and too many options ... trying to research one stock gets me looking at 10 other stocks and then off to the ETF's, etc, etc.

yes i think its worthwhile to sometimes turn OFF internet (blasphemy!) and do some work without all the distractions. it used to just be email but now i find myself turning it all off more and more.

MMS

[BlowFish]

Originally Posted by pbylina »

Well there is a strong correlation between EUR&CHF, CAD&OIL, and AUD&GOLD. So it would be a good for confirmation.

I think that's where people come unstuck. Sure it can add a bit of confidence but is it worth all the extra layers of complexity? I don't think so. To execute consistently it is much easier if it things are simple. Something you can do pretty much with out any thought or analysis.

Funnily enough I am always on the look out for things to help confirm a level and how ever 'good' they are I usually end up either abandoning them for simplicities sake or if they are that good trading them on their own for a bit of variety. Indicators that attempt to measure sentiment shifts or changes in order flow e.g. cumulative delta or trade intensity all have great appeal to help with triggering and timing. But you know what? if any of those 'trigger' you can bet your bottom dollar price will trigger itself (like breaking the previous bar).

JohnW has a couple of good posts on th subject of keeping inputs to a minimum.

I also think that methods that require lots of inputs are more inclined to fail with changing market conditions. You can 'curve fit' in discretionary trading as well as system trading.

OP even if coping with all this information it would probably be beneficial to try and strip away everything that is not essential. It would be much easier to maintain peak performance. You also might find you can trade more markets and diversification is a great way to reduce risk.

[TheNegotiator]

It's interesting isn't it though that we are always searching for additional indicators. I think that there are two reasons for this. Firstly, we have a lack of acceptance of ambiguity and so require more 'certainty' for our trading/what the market IS going to do. Searching and monitoring multiple things follows this. Secondly, what MMS said made me think of this. Our attention span for a market which is doing or perhaps more accurately 'achieving' very little, is about as much as it is for watching paint dry(unless you have some kind of odd hobby!). So there is this intellectual 'concentration gradient' where an immensely active mind needs to be 'filled' with something to figure out or focus on when not much is going on in the market. I am sure Rande would have something to say on this...